Preparing for the future

[Throatpunch]

Did you know there are 19 billion chickens on the Earth? Should they start worrying about over-population? The world is huge, the entire population could fit in Texas and, the moment a pandemic begins quarantines will become commonplace anyway, so that rhetoric is meaningless

I am sorry to say but you are completely wrong and the chicken argument I have heard before and it is stupid.

Humans have more of an overpopulation problem because we build huge cities, chickens don't have a huge carbon foot print. chickens dont accelerate global climate change to dangerous levels and then do nothing about it.

Chickens are several times smaller than humans, and dont have aeroplanes, ships and cars that can transport pandemics across the world. If there is not antibiotic to destroy it, humans are in real trouble. Diseases are adapting and destroying antibiotics.

If the disease is virulent enough, humanity could be wiped out in a matter of months.
Quarantines will become commonplace, but you cant quarantine everyone, just like you cant stop all illegals from getting over the border wall.

 

[Izak]

I am sorry to say but you are completely wrong

On which part? Because I'm fairly sure that the human population can fit into Texas.

Chickens are several times smaller than humans, and dont have aeroplanes, ships and cars that can transport pandemics across the world. If there is not antibiotic to destroy it, humans are in real trouble. Diseases are adapting and destroying antibiotics.

I think the meat industry -the one that regularly transports cattle and poultry across the world- would like to have a word with you.

If the disease is virulent enough, humanity could be wiped out in a matter of months.
Quarantines will become commonplace, but you cant quarantine everyone, just like you cant stop all illegals from getting over the border wall.

You certainly can stop all infected/illegal people from getting in your borders, most nations don't have the motivation to put a complete stop to illegal immigration but when a deadly supervirus is across from their borders I'm sure they'll figure something out.

 

[Throatpunch]

Humans have more of an overpopulation problem because we build huge cities, chickens don't have a huge carbon foot print. chickens dont accelerate global climate change to dangerous levels and then do nothing about it.

I'm sure they'll figure something out.

What, tell me

If half the border guard, police force, hospital staff, and population of the country is infected with the super virus, they'll be more concerned with being sick and dying that some of these infected people will slip the net.
If even some small elements of the quarantine/anti disease/ security force centre is infected, were in real trouble.

 

[Hassknecht]

Diseases are not that easy to predict, though.
The incubation time must be just right so it will infect as many people as possible before killing the host, it must be transmittable in a quick and reliable way, and the carrier must be hard to track.
So bacteria are not a good way. There's a race between bacteria and antibiotics, and medical knowledge about antibiotics are growing increasingly. Yes, bacteria can develop resistance against antibiotics, but those are resistances against broadband antibiotics and can still be targeted by specialised antibiotics and vaccines.
Virus infections are harder to contain, but those are generally limited to transmission via blood.
Containment and quarantines can stop outbreaks quickly, if there's infrastructure. If the affected area is full of uneducated idiots and lacking infrastructure (as we've recently seen in the Ebola outbreak where people looted mattresses of infected people) it's harder, but even then it can be contained quickly.
Those virus-kills-the-world-stories like The Stand or any modern zombie flick is highly unrealistic and usually relies on a) an almost impossible disease carrier and b) incredible amounts of stupidity displayed by a single person who has impossible amounts of responsibility.

 

[Izak]

If half the border guard, police force, hospital staff, and population of the country is infected with the super virus, they'll be more concerned with being sick and dying that some of these infected people will slip the net.
If even some small elements of the quarantine/anti disease/ security force centre is infected, were in real trouble.

I mean quarantine in the sense that an uninfected country closes its borders.
EDIT: While I did genuinely mean this I think you should ignore it in favour of what Hass posted.

Humans have more of an overpopulation problem because we build huge cities, chickens don't have a huge carbon foot print. chickens dont accelerate global climate change to dangerous levels and then do nothing about it.

We're not arguing about the carbon footprint of humans and chickens, we're arguing about the spread of disease and, as far as I know, it's a valid comparison in that sense.

 

[Hassknecht]

We're not arguing about the carbon printfoot of humans and chickens, we're arguing about the spread of disease and, as far as I know, it's a valid comparison in that sense.

Eh, we slaughter entire populations of chickens and pigs sometimes if there's a danger of spreading a disease too far... Dunno if we want to go that far

 

[Throatpunch]

I mean quarantine in the sense that an uninfected country closes its borders.
I see what you mean, but there still could be some infected, and it'll pass on quickly, so it'll be hard to quarantine if is really nasty.

We're not arguing about the carbon footprint of humans and chickens, we're arguing about the spread of disease and, as far as I know, it's a valid comparison in that sense
I know, but we were talking about overpopulation, so my point is valid.



Diseases are not that easy to predict, though.
The incubation time must be just right so it will infect as many people as possible before killing the host, it must be transmittable in a quick and reliable way, and the carrier must be hard to track.
Virus infections are harder to contain, but those are generally limited to transmission via blood.
Containment and quarantines can stop outbreaks quickly, if there's infrastructure. If the affected area is full of uneducated idiots and lacking infrastructure (as we've recently seen in the Ebola outbreak where people looted mattresses of infected people) it's harder, but even then it can be contained quickly.

You make some excellent points, but still, there could be infected people allover so it will be a huge effort to try to quarantine them all.
If the incubation time is just right, and it can transmit in a quick and reliable way, then it could cause some severe problems.
I am sort of referencing the black death, with rats. may be it will transmit through bugs or something small like that, and with that closed borders wont help one bit.
Correct me if I am wrong, but if its a mystery disease then they will have to spend time developing an antibiotic drug, and it will just keep spreading until this happens, and what if the research process is delayed

incredible amounts of stupidity displayed by a single person who has impossible amounts of responsibility.
You never know how idiotic some people in power are.

the reason prepping will be useful in this scenario, is if you go AWOL into the woods, there will be no one there. Most will either be stuck up at home, in church praying, or in hospital. This means you are away from any possible human transmitters.
If you are trained in collecting foodstuffs you wont end up eating infected food. correct me if I'm wrong, but you could contract a disease from bad food? Say someone or something infects the food supply with a disease or something like that, a knowledge of wild food will be useful. maybe even if a famine happens, you know what to do. hunting skills come in handy here

 

[Izak]

I know, but we were talking about overpopulation, so my point is valid.

Well if we're talking about overpopulation then your point doesn't matter at all, the vast majority of humans don't have problems with overpopulation, it's incredibly unlikely that we will have one in our lifetime.

 

[Throatpunch]

Humans have more of an overpopulation problem because we build huge cities, have a huge carbon foot print. accelerate global climate change to dangerous levels and then do nothing about it.

see, its valid given even a small amount of humans (7 Billion) that could fit into Texas can damage the environment forever
IMO, Its not about whether the humans can fit in, its about the damage they do. A couple billion more and imagine how awful climate change will be. If we dont sort ourselves out know the consequences of overpopulation will be dire, and the carbon footprint will be worse, and global warming will cause all sorts of environmental problems

 

[Izak]

Yes, that might be a problem in the future but I don't care about the future (in this context), I asked you why you specifically were prepping for a doomsday that you would almost certainly never see, that was how this conversation began.

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

Don't worry about climate change, warming is a good thing. Humans don't have much of an effect on it (the weather now is still colder than the medieval warm period).
Overpopulation isn't a problem either, the more people there are, the more innovations you have reducing the resources necessary to keep them alive and prosperous. Just think of how discovering coal as a source of heat reduced the demand for firewood, and therefore helped preserve forests, while also pumping out more CO2 to help them grow. Don't fall for the Malthusian nonsense.

 

[Throatpunch]

I have tried to explain how the doomsday is near in this debate.
we dont know how close the future problems are. the future is a flexible word, could be 10 years or tomorrow.
I think we might see it soon for the reasons I have described. Yellowstone is overdue for a eruption, and thats just one example. Deutsch bank might crash, trade wars, riots and disease are all feasible things.

I gotta go, but thanks for he discussion and I hope you survive well when the time comes

 

[Hassknecht]

The most viable vector these days will be mosquitos, like with malaria. But mosquitos aren't a big problem in the northern hemisphere, and those diseases carried by mosquitos are not transmittable via direct contact. Realistic diseases are not really much of a problem in developed countries unless all infrastructure breaks down first.
The Black Death was possible because there was no good infrastructure and no hygiene. Same with the Spanish Flu during and after WW1, those were possible because of a lack of infrastructure and hygiene.
And now medicine is much more capable of handling all kinds of disease vectors due to ever increasing knowledge.
Long story short, disease will only be a problem if everything is already fucked really hard.

Overpopulation and carbon footprint can be an issue, but unlikely in our lifetime. And personally I'm relatively positive that the near future will bring some very exciting developments in the fields of energy production and storage that will reduce the carbon footprint signficantly in the short and medium term.

 

[Throatpunch]

oh and just quickly, what innovations.
Coal is an unhealthy and unclean fuel that emits co2, and co2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, in turn accelerating global warming issues.
Trees are better than coal, because if you use compacted sawdust it emits literally no co2/ other gases, and many power stations use it because of this. If we chop down a tree and do it properly, by planting another 2 in its place its completely sustainable, and compacted sawdust is way better than coal. Trust me on the sawdust thing I use it in my wood burner.

I hope you arent one of those deluded people who believes in the clean coal good for the trees fallacy. and I really hope you arent a climate change denier. Its not a conspiracy cooked up by the government to impose carbon tax, its a real threat. Pumping out co2 is never a good thing. and if greenhouse gases destroy the ozone layer.....we are really fucked

And personally I'm relatively positive that the near future will bring some very exciting developments in the fields of energy production and storage that will reduce the carbon footprint significantly in the short and medium term.
I do hope so, that sounds good.

Long story short, disease will only be a problem if everything is already fucked really hard.
yeah I see, but I have given reasons how it could be fucked hard, opening the door for a disease.

Survive well

 

[Jogre]

A literal zombie apocalypse is unlikely, but I always took them as metaphors for race riots anyway.

Cartman?, Is that you?

 

[Izak]

I hope you arent one of those deluded people who believes in the clean coal good for the trees fallacy. and I really hope you arent a climate change denier.

Illuminati has some odd beliefs when it comes to the environment, politics and, race. If I had to describe him I'd say he's a hardline right wing mouthpiece with views that don't exactly match up with science, so he most definitely shares a lot of beliefs with the people who deny global warming.

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

oh and just quickly, what innovations.
Coal is an unhealthy and unclean fuel that emits co2, and co2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, in turn accelerating global warming issues.
Trees are better than coal, because if you use compacted sawdust it emits literally no co2/ other gases, and many power stations use it because of this. If we chop down a tree and do it properly, by planting another 2 in its place its completely sustainable, and compacted sawdust is way better than coal. Trust me on the sawdust thing I use it in my wood burner.

I hope you arent one of those deluded people who believes in the clean coal good for the trees fallacy. and I really hope you arent a climate change denier. Its not a conspiracy cooked up by the government to impose carbon tax, its a real threat.

And personally I'm relatively positive that the near future will bring some very exciting developments in the fields of energy production and storage that will reduce the carbon footprint significantly in the short and medium term.
I do hope so, that sounds good.

Long story short, disease will only be a problem if everything is already fucked really hard.
yeah I see, but I have given reasons how it could be fucked hard, opening the door for a disease.

Survive well

CO2 is good for plants. That's how photosynthesis works. Climate change is happening, but it's not a threat, it has happened countless times throughout history. The medieval ages were warmer than the present and there was no human industries back then. Less than 6 % of the greenhouse effect is caused by human activities. Governments will make up anything to raise your taxes, most of them also follow Keynesian economics and strive towards a steady-state (zero growth) economy, so this neo-Luddite movement that frowns upon the use of the most efficient fuels plays right into their hands.

Illuminati has some odd beliefs when it comes to the environment, politics and, race. If I had to describe him I'd say he's a hardline right wing mouthpiece with views that don't exactly match up with science, so he most definitely shares a lot of beliefs with the people who deny global warming.

When you hear skeptics being called deniers, it's a safe bet that the story is bullshit.

 

[Throatpunch]

You are disconcertingly anti science. Ever heard of the greenhouse effect? If that burns a whole in the ozone layer, then we wont be having this conversation, because we will be dead.

. Governments will make up anything to raise your taxes, most of them also follow Keynesian economics and strive towards a steady-state (zero growth) economy, so this neo-Luddite movement that frowns upon the use of the most efficient fuels plays right into their hands.

TAXES AREN'T INHERENTLY EVIL.
How can a movement based on scientific fact be neo - luddite, and your steady state is a ridiculous conspiracy. Instead of listening to scientists with degrees and countless years of research, you succumb to your crazy crank conspiracy about taxing and a zero growth

warming is a good thing
I am sorry, and I don't like rudeness but that is an immensely stupid thing to say
What frustrates me is right wingers and others like you developing opinions on things that are facts.
You must be the kind of guy to think Global Warming is a good thing because you like sun.
It isn't getting warmer its getting wetter.

Climate change exists

Here are some reasons why climate change is the biggest threat facing humanity:
Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among vulnerable groups like the aged. However, the same groups are also vulnerable to additional heat, and deaths attributable to heat waves are expected to be approximately five times as great as winter deaths prevented. It is widely believed that warmer climes will encourage migration of disease-bearing insects like mosquitoes and malaria is already appearing in places it hasn't been seen before.

Polar Melting

While the opening of a year-round ice free Arctic passage between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans would confer some commercial benefits, these are considerably outweighed by the negatives. Detrimental effects include loss of polar bear habitat and increased mobile ice hazards to shipping. The loss of ice albedo (the reflection of heat), causing the ocean to absorb more heat, is also a positive feedback; the warming waters increase glacier and Greenland ice cap melt, as well as raising the temperature of Arctic tundra, which then releases methane, a very potent greenhouse gas (methane is also released from the sea-bed, where it is trapped in ice-crystals called clathrates). Melting of the Antarctic ice shelves is predicted to add further to sea-level rise with no benefits accruing.

Ocean Acidification

A cause for considerable concern, there appear to be no benefits to the change in pH of the oceans. This process is caused by additional CO2 being absorbed in the water, and may have severe destabilizing effects on the entire oceanic food-chain.

Melting Glaciers

The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the principle impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of the world's population) depend on fresh water supplied each year by natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water supplies—drinking water, agriculture—may fail.

Sea Level Rise

Many parts of the world are low-lying and will be severely affected by modest sea rises. Rice paddies are being inundated with salt water, which destroys the crops. Seawater is contaminating rivers as it mixes with fresh water further upstream, and aquifers are becoming polluted. Given that the IPCC did not include melt-water from the Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps due to uncertainties at that time, estimates of sea-level rise are feared to considerably underestimate the scale of the problem. There are no proposed benefits to sea-level rise.

The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. The Stern report made clear the overall pattern of economic distress, and while the specific numbers may be contested, the costs of climate change were far in excess of the costs of preventing it. Certain scenarios projected in the IPCC AR4 report would witness massive migration as low-lying countries were flooded. Disruptions to global trade, transport, energy supplies and labour markets, banking and finance, investment and insurance, would all wreak havoc on the stability of both developed and developing nations. Markets would endure increased volatility and institutional investors such as pension funds and insurance companies would experience considerable difficulty.

Developing countries, some of which are already embroiled in military conflict, may be drawn into larger and more protracted disputes over water, energy supplies or food, all of which may disrupt economic growth at a time when developing countries are beset by more egregious manifestations of climate change. It is widely accepted that the detrimental effects of climate change will be visited largely on the countries least equipped to adapt, socially or economically.

Just because you found some article about the medieval warm period and know how photosynthesis works does not mean you are debunking climate change.

 

[Throatpunch]

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

When you hear skeptics being called deniers, it's a safe bet that the story is bullshit.
When you hear deniers being called skeptics, you can be safe they are talking bullshit

You do understand that that's an explicitly anti-science viewpoint, right?

You are disconcertingly anti science. Ever heard of the greenhouse effect? If that burns a whole in the ozone layer, then we wont be having this conversation, because we will be dead.

Yes, ever hear that it's natural and that there's nothing we can do about it? As I said before, human activities only make up about 6 % of the greenhouse effect.

TAXES AREN'T INHERENTLY EVIL.
How can a movement based on scientific fact be neo - luddite, and your steady state is a ridiculous conspiracy. Instead of listening to scientists with degrees and countless years of research, you succumb to your crazy crank conspiracy about taxing and a zero growth

Theft is inherently evil, and taxes are just glorified theft (taking people's money under the threat of violence). It's not based on scientific facts at all, and there is no scientific concensus about it at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy - Is it a ridiculous conspiracy? You'll find that many people (mostly not the smart ones) agree that we shouldn't strive towards infinite growth.

You can't just invoke "scientists with degrees and countless years of research" as an argument without naming the scientists and the research.

I am sorry, and I don't like rudeness but that is an immensely stupid thing to say
What frustrates me is right wingers and others like you developing opinions on things that are facts.
You must be the kind of guy to think Global Warming is a good thing because you like sun.
It isn't getting warmer its getting wetter.

So wait, now you're saying that it isn't getting warmer?
Wetter? The most pessimistic estimate for rising water levels estimates that they will be about 1 meter higher by 2100. So what? Building dams certainly won't get any higher, and we just won't build so close to the sea. IT'S THE APOCALYPSE!

Climate change exists

It does. But it's perfectly natural and has very, very little to do with human influence. Also, notice how the buzzword has changed from "global warming" to "climate change".

See, Earth had it's warm and cold periods throughout history.

Here are some reasons why climate change is the biggest threat facing humanity:
Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among vulnerable groups like the aged. However, the same groups are also vulnerable to additional heat, and deaths attributable to heat waves are expected to be approximately five times as great as winter deaths prevented. It is widely believed that warmer climes will encourage migration of disease-bearing insects like mosquitoes and malaria is already appearing in places it hasn't been seen before.

Humanity is more than capable of exterminating those pesky mosquitoes, it's just that eco-faggots won't let us. Like when they banned DDT despite overwhelming evidence that it's in fact safe, or at safer than letting mosquitoes run rampant with diseases.
There were migrations in the past, what makes you think there won't be any in the future?

Polar Melting

While the opening of a year-round ice free Arctic passage between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans would confer some commercial benefits, these are considerably outweighed by the negatives. Detrimental effects include loss of polar bear habitat and increased mobile ice hazards to shipping. The loss of ice albedo (the reflection of heat), causing the ocean to absorb more heat, is also a positive feedback; the warming waters increase glacier and Greenland ice cap melt, as well as raising the temperature of Arctic tundra, which then releases methane, a very potent greenhouse gas (methane is also released from the sea-bed, where it is trapped in ice-crystals called clathrates). Melting of the Antarctic ice shelves is predicted to add further to sea-level rise with no benefits accruing.

How about not giving a fuck about polar bears, I'm sure they'll manage just fine. Most species that ever existed went extinct, why should we cry about it now?

Ocean Acidification

A cause for considerable concern, there appear to be no benefits to the change in pH of the oceans. This process is caused by additional CO2 being absorbed in the water, and may have severe destabilizing effects on the entire oceanic food-chain.

How exactly would that not be countered by the melting glaciers and icecaps?

Melting Glaciers

The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the principle impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of the world's population) depend on fresh water supplied each year by natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water supplies—drinking water, agriculture—may fail.

"May fail" is a very flimsy argument for shooting your industrial and innovative capacities in the foot with superfluous regulation. Focusing on more effective desalination technology would be the smarter move.

Sea Level Rise

Many parts of the world are low-lying and will be severely affected by modest sea rises. Rice paddies are being inundated with salt water, which destroys the crops. Seawater is contaminating rivers as it mixes with fresh water further upstream, and aquifers are becoming polluted. Given that the IPCC did not include melt-water from the Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps due to uncertainties at that time, estimates of sea-level rise are feared to considerably underestimate the scale of the problem. There are no proposed benefits to sea-level rise.

Nothing that hasn't happened before.

Developing countries, some of which are already embroiled in military conflict, may be drawn into larger and more protracted disputes over water, energy supplies or food, all of which may disrupt economic growth at a time when developing countries are beset by more egregious manifestations of climate change. It is widely accepted that the detrimental effects of climate change will be visited largely on the countries least equipped to adapt, socially or economically.

Good thing I don't give half a smiling fuck about them, then.

Just because you found some article about the medieval warm period and know how photosynthesis works does not mean you are debunking climate change.

You really like strawmen, don't you? Nobody is saying that climate doesn't change, it's within it's nature to change. It's the human effect on it that's in dispute.

You're just choosing to trust people who have been wrong in every single prediction they ever made.